In a significant win for driver’s rights, a recent California DMV administrative per se (APS) hearing resulted in an “Order of Set Aside or Reinstatement” in favor of our client, Matthew. This means the proposed driver’s license suspension has been reversed, and no record of the suspension will appear on his driving record. See a redacted copy of the official order of reinstatement below.

The Legal Challenge: Continuances and Good Cause

The victory hinged on a precise application of California administrative law regarding hearing continuances. The law requires a party seeking a continuance to apply within 10 working days of discovering the need for it. Furthermore, any request must establish “good cause” with sufficient facts, including the nature of the conflict and steps taken to avoid it.

This case involved a DUI arrest where the client submitted to a blood test after a DUI arrest in Valencia California. The CHP took his license and Matthew demanded a hearing. Although the DMV had the arrest report which showed the client was arrested after he ran a red light, had odor of alcohol, unsteady gait, slurred speech, failed field sobriety tests and had an open container of alcohol in his vehicle, the DMV did not have his blood results and wanted to continue the hearing to obtain them. Matthew “put his foot down” and filed a motion arguing they failed to comply with California Government Code § 115.13(c)(3).

The DMV’s current request for a continuance must be denied, Matthew argued, because it is “deficient on its face”. The request omits the critical information required by subsection (c)(3): “The steps or actions taken by the requesting party to avoid the conflict”.

A review of the DMV’s submission reveals the DMV was “still awaiting chemical test results “. However, the DMV has provided no documentation, declaration, or narrative explaining what proactive measures were taken to ensure the availability of this essential evidence before the scheduled hearing date, nor what efforts were made to find an alternative solution once the conflict arose, such as the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum.

Matthew asserted: “This omission was not a minor technicality”. The purpose of § 115.13(c)(3) is to prevent administrative inefficiencies and unnecessary delays caused by a lack of due diligence by the requesting party. It ensures that continuances are a last resort, not a matter of convenience

What This Means for Matthew and his Client

An Order of Set Aside is the best possible outcome, as it completely clears the driving record of any suspension action. Matthew can now resume driving immediately without the burden of increased insurance rates or potential employment issues that often follow a suspension.

This outcome underscores the importance of experienced legal representation that understands the intricacies of DMV regulations and can leverage them effectively to protect driving privileges.

Here is a template of the motion in opposition of the continuance for anyone to use:

Legal Argument for Denial Of Continuance

I. The Request Fails to Meet the Statutory Notice Period Mandated by Government Code § 11524(b)

Government Code § 11524(b) establishes clear procedural requirements for requesting a continuance in administrative hearings governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), to which DMV license suspension hearings adhere.

The relevant text of the statute states:

“The agency shall continue a hearing upon a showing of good cause if the party or his or her representative [submits a request] not less than 10 working days before the hearing date…” (Cal. Gov. Code § 11524(b), emphasis added).

The request in question was submitted only four calendar days (or likely fewer than four working days) before the hearing. This timing demonstrably fails to meet the mandatory minimum 10 working days’ notice period prescribed by the legislature.

The California courts have consistently held that agencies must enforce these deadlines to maintain procedural order and prevent last-minute disruptions. See, e.g., Moisi v. College of Osteopathic Physicians & Surgeons (1962) 208 Cal.App.2d 35, 46 (upholding agency discretion in managing continuances and enforcing procedural rules).

II. The Request Does Not Trigger the Agency’s Obligation to Grant a Continuance

The statutory language of Cal. Gov. Code § 11524(b) provides a mandatory right to a continuance only if the request is made timely (i.e., at least 10 working days in advance) and for good cause. By failing the timing requirement, the moving party forfeits this mandatory right.

When a continuance request is untimely, granting it becomes a matter within the sole discretion of the hearing officer or the agency itself, rather than a right the petitioner can demand.

III. “Good Cause” Does Not Excuse Non-Compliance with Procedural Deadlines

While § 11524(b) allows for continuances on a showing of “good cause,” the “good cause” provision operates in conjunction with the 10-day rule, not as an exception to it.

An untimely request puts an undue burden on the agency, opposing counsel, and potential witnesses who have prepared for the scheduled date. To permit an untimely continuance would encourage procedural negligence and undermine the orderly administration of justice.

The moving party has failed to demonstrate exceptional or unforeseen circumstances that prevented them from filing the request within the proper statutory window. Lacking such extraordinary justification, their procedural failure should result in a denial.

Furthermore, The DMV’s Failure to Comply with § 115.13(c)(3)

The DMV’s current request for a continuance must be denied because it is deficient on its face. The request omits the critical information required by subsection (c)(3): “The steps or actions taken by the requesting party to avoid the conflict”.

A review of the DMV’s submission reveals the DMV “is still awaiting chemical test results “. The DMV has provided no documentation, declaration, or narrative explaining what proactive measures were taken to ensure the availability of this essential evidence before the scheduled hearing date, nor what efforts were made to find an alternative solution once the conflict arose, such as the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum.

This omission is not a minor technicality. The purpose of § 115.13(c)(3) is to prevent administrative inefficiencies and unnecessary delays caused by a lack of due diligence by the requesting party. It ensures that continuances are a last resort, not a matter of convenience.

Prejudice to the Respondent

This is a 3rd request to continue this hearing. Granting an unwarranted continuance prejudices the Respondent. The Respondent has a right to a timely hearing and prompt resolution of their driving privilege status. The Respondent has prepared for the hearing on the scheduled date, potentially arranging time off work, securing representation, or coordinating witnesses. The DMV should not be permitted to unilaterally delay proceedings without strict adherence to the rules designed to protect the Respondent’s interests and ensure administrative efficiency.

Violation of the “Neutral Arbiter” Mandate

The core holding of CDLA is that a driver has a constitutional right to a neutral and impartial hearing officer. When an HO grants themselves a continuance without a showing of “good cause,” they cease to act as a neutral arbiter and instead act as an advocate for the DMV’s interests. See California DUI Lawyers Assn. v. Department of Motor Vehicles (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 517.

Advocacy Over Adjudication: By granting a continuance to accommodate their own schedule or evidentiary gaps without a legal basis, the HO is effectively prosecuting the case for the DMV rather than judging it.

Structural Error: Recent case law, such as Knudsen v. DMV (2024), has clarified that failing to separate advocacy from adjudication constitutes a structural error that denies the driver a fair hearing.

Conclusion

For these reasons, the request for a continuance must be denied. Adherence to the plain language of Government Code section 11524(b) and CCR Title 13 § 115.13(c)(3) is essential for maintaining the integrity and predictability of the administrative hearing process. The moving party has not met its burden or complied with the clear statutory prerequisites for a timely continuance request.

Do you have questions about challenging a DMV action or understanding the concept of good cause in administrative hearings? Feel free to contact Matthew for a free consultation.

Matthew Ruff is a Top Tier DMV Hearing Attorney with over 30 years experience fighting and beating drivers license suspension actions.